(Final draft to be presented by Scott Bagshaw on the day)
Minutes:
(1) Mr Bagshaw circulated a paper relating to the outcome of consultation on the Primary and Secondary co-ordinated schemes for 2009.
(2) Mr Bagshaw first referred to the primary scheme and reported that it had received the full agreement of all admissions authorities and he proposed that it went forward without any changes.
(3) Mr Vye invited discussion on this aspect of the scheme but the Members had nothing to add.
(4) With regard to the Secondary scheme, Mr Bagshaw reported that in order to meet the recommendation of the Admissions Code that there should be testing before preference, the testing would need to take place four months earlier. The latest dates that these could be achieved by would be 18/19 September 2008. He reported that there had been some objections to this but the majority of those consulted were in favour of the proposals. A consultation exercise involving Year 5 parents had been carried out with almost 3000 responses (18%) received. Of these received, 60% were in favour of testing before preference but had concerns about the earlier testing dates. Mr Bagshaw advised that the question asked was what was more important to parents – knowing the outcome of the test before making preferences or having a further term of teaching before the child sat the test? He reported that the response revealed that the majority of the parents would rather know the test results before expressing a preference. Mr Bagshaw advised the Forum that the scheme put forward reflected this and referred to Testing Before Preference. However, because the Local Authority had not been able to secure the full agreement of all Admission Authorities, the Secretary of State would need to impose a scheme for 2009. Mr Bagshaw sought the views of the Forum on the proposals and confirmed that these would form part of the response to the Secretary of State.
(5) Mr Vye reminded Members that it had been the Forum’s practice in the past to not only put forward the majority view but also to include other views expressed by its Members. The Members agreed to do the same on this occasion.
(6) Discussion took place in respect of the following aspects of the proposals:-
(a) Mr Bagshaw confirmed that the moderation/standardisation would take into account the earlier testing date.
(b) Mr Parr expressed his dissatisfaction that the Forum had not been given the opportunity to consider these proposals earlier. Mr Bagshaw acknowledged the validity of this point and commented that normally the proposals would not go to Cabinet until March. He advised that because there had not been full agreement to the proposals, if the report did not go to Cabinet by February, it would not leave the Secretary of State time to consider the scheme. He reiterated that the scheme would be one imposed by the Secretary of State and that if considered any later, there would not be time to meet the legal requirements and allow full consultation time. He assured Members that it had not been the intention to deny discussion.
(c) Mr Bagshaw reminded Members that two options had been presented for discussion at the last meeting of the Forum on 11 September 2007. These were to either maintain the Status Quo or go for Testing Before Preference. As the consultation had shown more support received for Testing Before Preference, this was included in the proposed scheme.
(d) Whilst Mr Truelove did not think that testing in September was an ideal solution, if Kent was to have a selection process, there was no better option available than the one proposed.
(e) Mr Simmonds noted that paragraph 16 of the last meeting confirmed Mr Bagshaw’s statement that discussions on these proposals had taken place. Dr Craig confirmed that draft consultations had been discussed in September and that Mr Bagshaw was now reporting back on these consultations. He reported that the Forum’s views were being sought to go with the Local Authority’s comments to the Secretary of State.
(f) Ms Nee was concerned that a low response from Year 5 parents was being taken as a mandate for the views included in the proposed scheme. She noted that only 18% had replied and the 60% referred to was 60% of 18%, in other words it was 10.8% of that small number that supported Testing Before Preference. Mr Bagshaw took the view that the Code said there should be testing before preference and that the majority of those who responded thought it should be done.
(g) Mr Watt enquired as to testing arrangements for service families in schools outside of Kent, including those living abroad. Dr Craig confirmed that there were approximately 2000 children from outside Kent who wished to access Kent grammar schools and that arrangements were made for them to take the tests at testing centres or their own schools.
(h) Mr Parr felt that the Code was a guidance and that with Kent’s complexities there were good reasons for not pursuing Testing Before Preference. In his view the survey was a small sample and that having an equal preference scheme should be enough. Testing favoured affluent parents who could afford tutors. Also with early testing, children were less mature and the process was less reliable and would lead to more appeals later in the process. He was not aware of any educational research as to why it was the way forward and that he could see no reason why it should be done this year. These views were supported by Ms Matthews who could not see the advantages of parents knowing the results of the tests early as equal preferences had now dealt with the grievances that would be raised by parents.
(i) Ms Nee referred to the extension of choices from 3 to 4 and quoted hypothetical statistics for 2007, if there had been 4 preferences available, bearing in mind that there would still only be the same number of school places available. Mr Bagshaw replied that it had been the PESE review group that wanted to increase the number of preferences available to parents from 3 to 4. Dr Craig agreed that the advantage was only marginal but even so he thought that it was preferable for parents to have that advantage.
(j) Mr Carroll asked if the test would be changed to allow for young children taking it. Mr Bagshaw replied that it would not as it was weighed by NFER. Mr Carroll was still of the view that the test would be harder as less teaching time would be available and less aspects of the curriculum would be covered. Mr Bagshaw agreed that some children developed more rapidly than others but that the results were age weighted .
(k) Ms King asked whether there was a gender bias as girls tended to develop more rapidly than boys. Dr Craig advised that the scores were the same across the board irrespective of gender. Mr Wetherell’s view was that testing was going to happen and that there would be advantages and disadvantages to different children but given that they all take the test at the same time they would be compared similarly.
(l) Dr Craig advised the Members that the tests were designed by NFER and were used by several local authorities who carry out autumn term testing. He confirmed that they were designed for use throughout Year 6, were gender free, and the best tests available that Kent could use. Mrs Fitch put the view as a parent that she found the procedure confusing and that there was something inherently wrong in selection. Like Mr Parr she queried why there was a need for this to be rushed through. Dr Craig clarified the reasons for this. He reminded Forum Members that this related to 2009 and that the decision had to be made now to meet the statutory procedures deadline. In effect there was a 2 year lead in.
(m) Mrs Cottam spoke in favour of the proposals and said that the majority of headteachers were also in favour of it. She was keen that the Cabinet and Secretary of State were given a balanced view from the Forum. Mr Simmonds agreed. In his view there had been a one dimensional debate.
(7) (i) Mr Vye noted that some Members of the Forum were in favour of the Secondary Scheme for 2009 and some were not. To give a guidance on the views expressed, he asked for a show of hands. (Mrs Stockell had already left the meeting and could not register her view).
(ii) The Forum Members voted as follows:-
In favour of the proposed Secondary Co-ordinated Scheme for 2009 -7
Against the proposed Secondary Co-ordinated Scheme for 2009 - 6
Not indicated either way - 2
(iii) Mr Vye felt that this was a fair reflection of the views held and that a balanced report would go to the Cabinet and Secretary of State.
(8) RESOLVED that the Forum Members unanimously supported the proposed Primary Co-ordinated Scheme for 2009 and that the diverse views on the proposed Secondary Co-ordinated Scheme for 2009 be made known to the Cabinet and Secretary of State.